This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2010-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| While there are instances where the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the availability of an appeal, the long line of decisions denying the special civil action for certiorari, either before appeal was availed of or in instances where the appeal period had lapsed, far outnumber the instances where certiorari was given due course.[24] The few significant exceptions are: (1) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; (2) when the broader interests of justice so require; (3) when the writs issued are null; (4) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority,[25] which we find to be not present in this case. Notably, petitioner did not even fail to advance an explanation why appeal was not availed of, nor was there any showing that the issue raised in the petition for certiorari could not be raised on appeal. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[26] | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The law and the Rules clearly provide that the remedy is an appeal to the Court of Appeals in a situation such as that obtaining in the instant case. Thus, appeal being available to them, petitioners effectively foreclosed their right to resort to a special civil action for certiorari, a limited form of review and a remedy of last recourse, which lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[21] The aforesaid remedies are mutually exclusive. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy.[22] | |||||
|
2006-03-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is the general rule that certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45.[7] The few significant exceptions were: when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; or when the broader interests of justice so require; or when the writs issued are null; or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[8] This case does not bear any of the exceptions such that the Court should relax the rule. | |||||
|
2005-12-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The remedy to obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on the merits in the instant case is appeal. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision. The existence and availability of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for the latter remedy is that "there should be no appeal."[15] | |||||
|
2005-08-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A motion for reconsideration of an assailed decision is deemed a plain and adequate remedy provided by law.[13] Thus, for petitioner's utter failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the court a quo before recourse to this special civil action was made, as a general rule, the instant petition must be dismissed for failure to comply with a condition precedent in order for said recourse to lie. While in certain instances, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be resorted to despite the availability of an appeal,[14] such[15] are sadly nonexistent in this case. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the remedy to obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on the merits is appeal. This is true even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision.[36] | |||||
|
2005-01-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court has often enough reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65[26] lies only when there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[27] Certiorari is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment or final order despite the availability of that remedy. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[28] | |||||
|
2005-01-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure to comply with the rules.[31] This Court finds no exceptional circumstances to justify the relaxation of the rules and neither has petitioner tried to offer any valid reason or explanation as to why it failed to properly observe the rules of procedure. This being the case, another elementary rule of procedure applies, i.e., the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional so that failure to do so renders the questioned resolution final and executory, and deprives this Court of jurisdiction to alter the final order, much less to entertain the appeal.[32] This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.[33] It is a jurisdictional caveat that not even this Court can trifle with.[34] | |||||